Set up directories for W3C CSSWG test suite sync to/from mozilla-central

RESOLVED FIXED in mozilla16

Status

()

Core
Layout
P2
normal
RESOLVED FIXED
6 years ago
5 years ago

People

(Reporter: fantasai, Assigned: fantasai)

Tracking

unspecified
mozilla16
x86
Linux
Points:
---
Bug Flags:
in-testsuite +

Firefox Tracking Flags

(Not tracked)

Details

(Whiteboard: revised README file provided for review, URL)

Attachments

(6 attachments, 1 obsolete attachment)

(Assignee)

Description

6 years ago
Created attachment 564688 [details]
W3C Test Suite Contribution License Grant

I wanted to set up a directory in mozilla-central where we can host tests that
are sync'ed with W3C, specifically for the CSSWG test suites, which are
dual-licensed under the W3C Document License and the BSD 3-clause.

The dual-license that applies to the W3C tests:
  http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2008/04-testsuite-copyright
The license grant W3C requests of test contributors is attached.

What I'd like to do is to create

other-licenses/
  |-w3c-css/
      |-submitted/      # tests we are submitting to W3C, our copy is master
      |-received/       # tests we are receiving from W3C, their copy is master

with a LICENSE file stating the 3-clause BSD under which these files are licensed and explaining licensing terms for contributions to these directories on mozilla-central.

This bug is to get legal sign-off on the plan.
(Assignee)

Comment 1

6 years ago
Created attachment 564732 [details]
LICENSE file
Attachment #564732 - Flags: review?
(Assignee)

Comment 2

6 years ago
Created attachment 564734 [details]
README file
Attachment #564734 - Flags: review?
(Assignee)

Updated

6 years ago
(Assignee)

Comment 3

6 years ago
Created attachment 564876 [details]
Rigo's response to Gerv's concern about "or"
Reading Rigo's doc, I think the right thing is for us to outbound-license as pure BSD, as he says that's OK with him. 

This all seems fine to me, but we need an official legal sign-off.

Gerv
Assignee: gerv → nobody
Group: legal
Component: Licensing → Licensing
Product: mozilla.org → Legal
QA Contact: licensing → handerson
Version: other → unspecified
Luis - Can you please take a look at this and let us know if you agree with Gerv or have other thoughts?
Assignee: nobody → villalu
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Priority: -- → P2
Whiteboard: under legal review by outside counsel
Since Luis hasn't responded I'm reassigning to Jishnu.
Assignee: villalu → jmenon
Whiteboard: under legal review by outside counsel → under legal review
(Assignee)

Comment 7

6 years ago
Can I get an ETA on this, so I know whether to set up an interim solution that doesn't require legal signoff?

Comment 8

6 years ago
Hi - I agree with Gerv, the contribution license should be pure BSD and am fine with the inbound license. Could you rewrite the README file to reflect this and re-up for a quick look?
Assignee: jmenon → fantasai.bugs
Whiteboard: under legal review → fantasai to re-upload README file with corrections
(Assignee)

Comment 9

6 years ago
Created attachment 575093 [details]
README file

Alright jmenon, let me know if anything needs further changing.
Attachment #564734 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #564734 - Flags: review?
Attachment #575093 - Flags: review?
Jishnu - looks like this is back in your court.
Assignee: fantasai.bugs → jmenon
Whiteboard: fantasai to re-upload README file with corrections → revised README file provided for review
(Assignee)

Comment 11

5 years ago
Can I get an ETA on this, so I know whether to set up an interim solution that doesn't require legal signoff? Thanks~
(Assignee)

Comment 12

5 years ago
Ok, I'm going to assume that legal has no problem with this since they haven't responded. Shifting into Core for implementation.
Assignee: jmenon → nobody
Group: legal
Component: Licensing → Layout
Product: Legal → Core
QA Contact: handerson → layout
(Assignee)

Updated

5 years ago
Assignee: nobody → fantasai.bugs
Comment on attachment 564732 [details]
LICENSE file

Going through unassigned reviews. dbaron, can you review or reassign as appropriate?
Attachment #564732 - Flags: review? → review?(dbaron)
Attachment #575093 - Flags: review? → review?(dbaron)
(Assignee)

Updated

5 years ago
Attachment #564732 - Flags: review?(dbaron)
(Assignee)

Updated

5 years ago
Attachment #575093 - Flags: review?(dbaron)
(Assignee)

Comment 14

5 years ago
Created attachment 615542 [details] [diff] [review]
patch

This patch creates the submitted and received directories in layout/reftests and adds README files to explain each.
Attachment #615542 - Flags: review?(dbaron)
(Assignee)

Updated

5 years ago
Summary: Set up W3C <-> mozilla-central sync for CSSWG test suites → Set up directories for W3C CSSWG test suite sync to/from mozilla-central
Comment on attachment 615542 [details] [diff] [review]
patch

3 thoughts so far:

  * the LICENSE file might not be clear enough for the "submitted" directory, since for test submissions people need to agree to W3C's license too

 * you need to add your new layout/reftests/w3c-css/submitted/reftest.list to layout/reftests/reftest.list with an include line.

 * your commented out "import" lines should be "include" lines instead
Comment on attachment 615542 [details] [diff] [review]
patch

>+Do not touch anything here unless you are a layout/ or automation
>+tools owner or peer, or have permission from one and know what you
>+are doing.

I don't think there's any reason to mention ownership rules; you should just say that you shouldn't make any changes here that don't come from the master repository, because if you do they'll be overwritten by the next sync.

r=dbaron with that and the issues in the previous comment fixed
Attachment #615542 - Flags: review?(dbaron) → review+
(Assignee)

Comment 17

5 years ago
Created attachment 618810 [details] [diff] [review]
patch v2

Patch with review comments addressed.
(Assignee)

Updated

5 years ago
Keywords: checkin-needed
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/bc09cddd0a10
Flags: in-testsuite+
Keywords: checkin-needed
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla16
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/bc09cddd0a10
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 5 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
What are the next steps here?
I think the next steps here are to start syncing things occasionally and make the process more automated as time progresses.  I did a first sync from submitted/ into the W3C repository yesterday; a first pass at syncing into received/ probably requires a script for just the first pass.
Some importing:
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/98df684d7a3a
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/aa86bacc7e57
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/b64118688939 (bustage fix for previous)
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/aa86bacc7e57
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/b64118688939
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.